Aug 152010
 

By Kelly O’Connell
Canada Free Press, August 15, 2010

Even moderately observant Americans realize Obama’s policies strongly favor unions. But why? Some believe simply because unions helped deliver his presidency. But, do more basic and sinister motives lurk beneath the surface? In Marxism, great emphasis is placed on use of unions to advance socialism. French historian of labor Michel Collinet claims… “The control of labor unions was, and still remains, the principle objective of Communist parties in industrialized countries.”

Given immense potential for shutdown and sabotage, and for use as vehicles of propaganda and agitation, unions remain indispensable tools of Marxist ambition. Unions contributed an estimated $400 million to Obama’s presidential campaign. Despite comprising only 9% of US workers, labor unions are still key to socialist schemes, and still have potential to badly damage our democracy. This essay argues unions are crucial to Obama’s plans for socializing America. Continue reading »

Aug 152010
 

By James Lewis
American Thinker, August 15, 2010

Nothing is more like the fascist Axis of the 1930s than Islamist expansionism today. Like the Hitler-Tojo-Mussolini Axis of the 1930s, Islamic fascists are fundamentally imperialistic, with an explicit order from on High to subjugate civilized people or turn them to ashes. Mohammed himself famously threatened the cultured Persian and Byzantine Emperors of his time, and in the following years, his followers knocked those empires over like devouring army ants.

The peace-loving Buddhist monasteries of India were consumed by invading Muslim armies, with the result that there are no Buddhist monasteries left in India today. Not a single one. Only Hinduism survived the Muslim invasions, because Hindus are not pacifists. You can ask any Sikh about that; they are a huge warrior religion that arose as a buffer between Hindu India and its many Muslim invaders, who now hold Pakistan and Afghanistan. In India, the Buddhist monks just died or fled to Tibet. So much for the glorious results of peaceful resistance against Muslim armies. Continue reading »

Jun 242010
 

by Rowan Scarborough
Human Events, June 24, 2010

The military is finally telling the unvarnished truth about President Obama’s dysfunctional national security team.

Oddly, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his inner circle chose to dish dirt to a reporter for Rolling Stone, a decidedly left-wing publication that portrays the U.S. military negatively and knows as much about counter-insurgency as a 4th grader. The article that brought down the career special-operations soldier throws in the “F-word” several times, not as a quote, but to describe the author’s own views.

Not included in the story is an ongoing dispute between the White House and its generals that shows why McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had grown so frustrated. Continue reading »

Jun 182010
 

Mark Steyn
OC Register, June 18, 2010

I believe it was Jean Giraudoux who first said, “Only the mediocre are always at their best.”

Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year’s boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they’d have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Matthews’ no-longer-tingling leg. Continue reading »

Jun 182010
 

British public opinion was wildly in favor of candidate Obama. President Obama is proving to be something else again.

Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online, June 18, 2010

Various irate British observers — from columnists like Peter Hitchens and Geoffrey Wheatcroft to parliamentarians and former cabinet officials — have recently declared the “special relationship” with America to be over. The Anglo animus, perhaps brought to a boil by the World Cup soccer match and by President Obama’s handling of the BP spill, has now reached comical levels. Everything from the War of 1812 to American neutrality in 1939 is evoked to prove that the present estrangement is more typical than aberrant in our post-1776 relations.

To be fair, the miffed British are reacting to two years of both perceived and real slights from the Obama administration. Who does not know the familiar litany? There was the rude return of the magnificent Churchill bust. The asymmetrical gift exchange with Gordon Brown — at the end of a visit in which the president repeatedly snubbed the prime minister — and the banal choice of gift for the queen the following month revealed a certain symbolic spite on the administration’s part. Continue reading »

Jun 182010
 

By James Lewis
American Thinker, June 18, 2010

The Middle East is now teetering on the brink of war because a vast international mob has been loosed, with the tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the real meaning of the Gaza martyrdom stunt of May 31, 2010. That purposeful provocation is not past. The Gaza suicide operation is still being used all over the Middle East and Europe to whip up hatred and violence.

As Mark Steyn just reported from a dingy cafe in Morocco,

I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn’t so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world … the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean. … (there is) saturation coverage of the “Massacre In The Med” (as the front page headline in Britain’s Daily Mirror put it).” Continue reading »

Jun 172010
 

What exactly does Barack Obama wish to accomplish abroad?

Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online, June 17, 2010

Not being George W. Bush while apologizing for America’s purported sins is not a foreign policy.

Ronald Reagan came into office with the idea of rolling back the Soviet Union. Reagan hoped that such an evil empire might collapse from its inability to match a newly confident United States.

George H. W. Bush sought to oversee a peaceful dissolution of the Soviet empire, the reunification of Germany, and a new Western-led world order that thugs such as Manuel Noriega or Saddam Hussein could not disrupt.

Bill Clinton pushed Western-inspired liberal globalization to lift the Third World out of poverty. Continue reading »

Jun 162010
 

By Chad Stafko
American Thinker, June 16, 2010

Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill.  In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation’s dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence.

During his speech, the President made a statement that was blatantly false.  The President noted, “We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserve.  And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” Continue reading »